I mean, bikes are great for a lot of things and cities should definitely have the infrastructure to support their usage, but let’s not pretend that they can easily replace cars in every use case.
Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities. Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system, but that’s exactly why cars are considered to be the symbol of freedom - not depending on the bus/train schedules, weather, distance etc.
Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities.
In many cases the long distances were created by cars. Cities worked fine before cars. But cars demand so much space that cities became spread out.
A solution to this problem is to repopulate city centers around the country by replacing parking lots with mixed use buildings.
Despite some people on here’s hard-on for completely banning cars which would be impractical and impossible country wide, it makes sense to see them as what they should be: a luxury for most and a necessity for a few people with mobility issues.
Mass public transport should be the cheapest and preferred option and a vital part of any city’s infrastructure. Then spreading out in terms of density, towns should have parking outside of the town centre with regular free shuttles into the centre with regular and cheap/free bus travel to and from town centres with buses that have segregated lanes for high traffic areas so buses are able to run on a good timetable. Towns should also be built on the 15 minute city model. Then finally, in villages and rural locations, an on-demand bus service balances the provision of public transport without ridiculously long waiting times between buses or spending way too much on frequency when there isn’t the population density for demand.
All of these population densities should have extensive cycle paths and long cycle highways
between these population centres.
And viola: civic infrastructure where a car is the infrequent option and therefore significantly less traffic, lower carbon footprint, lower infrastructure maintenance costs, and a more active population engaging with eachother in thriving communities.
That freedom is an illusion. You’re constantly subject to other people in cars doing things, and what they do is often stupid as shit. You only have that freedom when out on the open road with few other cars around, and you’re probably specifically going out of your way to do that.
It is not a no one should ever use a car, it is one does everyone believe there is no alternative to a car.
And I am very confused why people constantly bring up people with disabilities cannot drive bikes but can drive cars. The most people with disabilities cannot drive cars. You only see people with who have the means to drive a car. The rest is just stuck at home. It is not only having a wheelchair, but sight, hearing, age, epilepsy, mental capacity all those things restrict your ability to drive. Building a car to enable one person is so much less efficient as building infrastructure for all regardless of age, income and diasability.
One more thing to freedom of travel. Imagine having a car. You park it and visit a sight. You are done and have to return to your car. You can in general never just leave. This may apply to a bike too but in comparison public transport or on foot it is a hassle.
You say it yourself: Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system.
I mean, bikes are great for a lot of things and cities should definitely have the infrastructure to support their usage, but let’s not pretend that they can easily replace cars in every use case.
Cars are faster, cover long distances which are just infeasible for bikes, are more comfortable, can be used in bad weather, and are needed for people with disabilities. Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system, but that’s exactly why cars are considered to be the symbol of freedom - not depending on the bus/train schedules, weather, distance etc.
In many cases the long distances were created by cars. Cities worked fine before cars. But cars demand so much space that cities became spread out.
A solution to this problem is to repopulate city centers around the country by replacing parking lots with mixed use buildings.
the freedom to be stuck in traffic because everyone else got a car too
Despite some people on here’s hard-on for completely banning cars which would be impractical and impossible country wide, it makes sense to see them as what they should be: a luxury for most and a necessity for a few people with mobility issues.
Mass public transport should be the cheapest and preferred option and a vital part of any city’s infrastructure. Then spreading out in terms of density, towns should have parking outside of the town centre with regular free shuttles into the centre with regular and cheap/free bus travel to and from town centres with buses that have segregated lanes for high traffic areas so buses are able to run on a good timetable. Towns should also be built on the 15 minute city model. Then finally, in villages and rural locations, an on-demand bus service balances the provision of public transport without ridiculously long waiting times between buses or spending way too much on frequency when there isn’t the population density for demand.
All of these population densities should have extensive cycle paths and long cycle highways between these population centres.
And viola: civic infrastructure where a car is the infrequent option and therefore significantly less traffic, lower carbon footprint, lower infrastructure maintenance costs, and a more active population engaging with eachother in thriving communities.
That freedom is an illusion. You’re constantly subject to other people in cars doing things, and what they do is often stupid as shit. You only have that freedom when out on the open road with few other cars around, and you’re probably specifically going out of your way to do that.
It is not a no one should ever use a car, it is one does everyone believe there is no alternative to a car.
And I am very confused why people constantly bring up people with disabilities cannot drive bikes but can drive cars. The most people with disabilities cannot drive cars. You only see people with who have the means to drive a car. The rest is just stuck at home. It is not only having a wheelchair, but sight, hearing, age, epilepsy, mental capacity all those things restrict your ability to drive. Building a car to enable one person is so much less efficient as building infrastructure for all regardless of age, income and diasability.
One more thing to freedom of travel. Imagine having a car. You park it and visit a sight. You are done and have to return to your car. You can in general never just leave. This may apply to a bike too but in comparison public transport or on foot it is a hassle.
You say it yourself: Granted, all of those use cases should be covered by a good public transport system.
There should be no but afterwards.